On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 10:13:41PM -0500, Bob Vance wrote:
> >That's because it's allowed under the sections I quoted.
>> I understand and noticed that :)
>> My question was why anyone would want to go to the trouble of
> . the ISP's delegating another zone
> and . requiring another zone for the end-user to manage
>> All the discussions seem to focus on this delegation some sub-zone of
> z.y.x.in-addr.arpa. , rather than simply using CNAMEs into the
> already-existing forward zone.
>> What I was saying is that the latter seems to me to be a better and
> simpler solution and no one has said differently or given any drawbacks
> to this solution. If the advantages are there and there aren't any
> drawbacks, then why isn't this solution promulgated more on this list?
The other is in fact simpler conceptually since it does not mix two
unrelated concepts under one domain. If you understand it, as you
obviously do, then the mixture does not pose these problems, and you
may not realize how confusing such things can be to those who do not
understand them so well.
--
Joe Yao jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.